1/ I have a thread about natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2, but I was asked to do a comparison with vaccine induced immunization. Interestingly, deep analysis of the two is largely missing. A recent study will do the job,
2/ but we need to focus on results, not conclusions, because even though the study was designed to compare the two types of immunization, plus added the effect of a booster jab on top of infection, the interpretation is a bit twisted to mostly compare the 2 jab scenarios.
3/ Quote:
"Three individuals who previously showed a response, despite lack of laboratory evidence for infection (therefore presumably a cross-reactive response to an endemic human coronavirus) showed an unchanged or decreased [T cell] response to spike after vaccination."
4/ Apparently, in some cases, vaccination can decrease T cell response to real antigen exposure, which is needless to say, not good. A preprint described the phenomenon earlier, although only following the second, so-called booster, jab:
5/ Next quote:
"Twenty of 22 vaccinated naïve individuals had detectable S1 specific ASC comprising 0.02% to 1.54% of the memory B cell (MBC) pool. By comparison, all vaccinated post infection individuals had detectable S1 specific ASCs (1.90–50% of MBC pool)."
6/ This boost seems totally unnecessary in the vast majority of people, perhaps with the exception of the lowest end of the spectrum (non-responders). Potential harms of 50 % !!! of all ASCs dedicated to a single subunit of a single virus? Certainly not normal.
7/ On to the next part in the paper: "Vaccinated naïve individuals made a lower nAb response to WT virus than seen following natural infection at 16–18 weeks" Finally, a concrete comparison. It shows that natural infection induced immunity is at least as good as vaccination.
8/ Next quote: "there was a significantly enhanced nAb response in vaccinated post infection individuals compared with the vaccinated naïve group (Fig. 1G), the mean value being 25,273 compared to 420, that is, a 60-fold increase."
Is it a useful bump? Is the higher the better?
9/ Move on to "The data in Fig. 1 indicate that there is a strong prime-boosting effect of prior infection on single dose vaccination. Augmentation is seen more strongly in MBC frequency, anti-RBD, and nAb responses than for T cell response frequency.
10/ …Furthermore, there was no correlation between S1 ASC frequency and T cell response frequency (Fig. 1H). There is, however, a correlation between S1 ASC and RBD antibody titers"
11/ This finding suggests that the body reacts to vaccination after infection as if there was an acute reinfection.
It is not universal "boosting of immunity", just triggering Ab secretion from existing (and memory) cells.
12/ Seems counterproductive, except for Pfizer shareholders and executives?

Next quote: "The majority of SARS-CoV-2 immune naïve individuals made no nAb response to the B.1.1.7 (18/20) and B.1.351 (17/20) variants after single dose vaccination.
13/ …In contrast, almost all vaccinated post infection individuals made a strong nAb response to the B.1.1.7 (24/24) and B.1.351 (23/24) variants after a single dose vaccination with a 46-fold (B.1.1.7) and 63-fold (B.1.351) increase in mean nAb IC50"
14/ I'm confident that this is what happens upon reexposure to the virus, e.g. a variant. too. So what is the point of the booster again? Confirm the effect with virus and forget the excess jab.
15/ I am ready to volunteer, but you'll need an uncommon strain, because most likely I have already been exposed to the B117.

"Worryingly, after single dose vaccination, 90% (18/20) of vaccinated naïve individuals showed no detectable nAbs (IC50 < 50) against B.1.1.7"
16/ Defending the vaccine here, but it's not necessarily worrying. There is clearly no 90 % breakthrough rate of B117 in 3w+ primer vaccinated people. This is the striking problem of the unjustified strong focus on systemic antibodies in a fundamentally respiratory infection.
17/ Let's jump to the part "We initially looked at T cell responses following natural infection and found that at 16–18 weeks post infection, the N501Y mutation appeared to have no substantial differential impact on the T cell response (Fig. 2F), unlike nAb recognition."
18/ The authors also get it. That's why we have T cells, these can help refine Ab responses upon "variant" exposure. Miraculously, it already works in vaccinated people, despite the much narrower antigen range used.
19/ Apparently, the full spike is a long enough polypeptide sequence to provide many antigens for T cell receptors.

Next one, please.
20/ "vaccinated naïve individuals made an anti S1 RBD Ab response with a mean titer of about 100 U/ml at d22 (±2d) after vaccination, roughly equivalent to the mean peak Ab response after natural infection.
21/ …However, the spike T cell response after one dose was lower than after natural infection, and for 30% of vaccinees no response could be measured."
One jab is clearly inferior to natural infection. No response in 30 % sounds too high a proportion?
22/ A long quote is imminent, beware and pay attention please. "It is striking that the high IC50 titers in those vaccinated after infection provide such a large protective margin that responses to authentic B.1.1.7 and B.1.351variants are also high.
23/ …In contrast, nAb responses in individuals several months on from mild infection show much lower IC50s against B.1.1.7 and B.1.351, often <100. Similarly, the majority of responses in naïve individuals after one dose show weak recognition of B.1.1.7 and B.1.351.
24/ This finding indicates potentially poor protection against B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 in individuals who have experienced natural infection or who have only had one vaccine dose."

Firstly, it is not striking, rather expected.
25/ As suggested above, this is likely a normal response to reinfection. At least the body percieves the reappearance of antigens as re-exposure. Secondly, this finding still does not indicate poor protection against the mentioned variants.
26/ Perhaps it takes a day or two more and mild instead of no symptoms, but it's highly unlikely that the vast majority of people would experience variant infection the same way as an immune naïve individual.
27/ Last quote: "second dose vaccination in one dose vaccinated post infection individuals offers no additional enhancement."
A second "booster" for a previously infected person was even shown to suppress cellular immunity, which sounds straight harmful. See quote tweet in 4/.
28/ TL;DR
Natural infection induced immunity is typically at least as robust as the one elicited by double vaccination, but the former protects more effectively against emerging variants. Moreover, level of systemic Ab is not necessarily the best benchmark to use.
Extending evidence base with this preprint. On a side note, time since immunization, whether via infection or vaccine, is an important factor that has to be taken into consideration when comparisons are made.
Adding these intriguing findings.
Lifelong protection by bone marrow plasma cells after mild course of COVID-19.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Gabor Erdosi 🧩📄📊🧭

Gabor Erdosi 🧩📄📊🧭 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gerdosi

Feb 15
Dude either has no clue about what ‘immunity’ is, or has a very narrow tunnel view of it. Alternatively he’s deliberately spreading misinformation here.
NB, more typical courses have been:
Infection with Wuhan + Omicron
Infection with Alpha + Omicron
Infection with Wuhan + Delta + Omicron
Guess how these typical scenarios fair against vaccination + Omicron? Yep, you’re absolutely right.
Immunology noobs question my assessments above.
Please consider that the study only looked at systemic humoral immunity and Ab binding to the spike protein. Then think about all the layers of immunity omitted from the analysis, e.g. innate, mucosal, T cells, to all antigens, etc.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 20, 2021
If you’re heading to the hospital with COVID make sure to declare that you’re allergic to remdesivir. It’s ineffective anyway.

Kidney disorders as serious adverse drug reactions of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019: a retrospective case–noncase study kidney-international.org/article/S0085-… Text Shot: Our findings, ba...
While remdesivir is still touted as ‘safe and effecrive’ in the COVID response of many countries, public health officials start removing health insurance reimbursement for vitamins and minerals due to lack of efficacy shown… Could you make this up? businessinsider.co.za/medical-scheme…
My sad personal experience echoes this. theepochtimes.com/controversial-…
Read 4 tweets
Dec 10, 2021
‘Pandemic’ (changed by WHO in 2009)
‘Vaccine’ (changed by CDC in 2021, where kefir or vitamin D now fully qualify)
‘Peer reviewed’ (clueless people repeat it as mantra)
‘Breakthrough infection’ (if there’s robust immunity
‘T cells’ (ignored and ridiculed until Omicron appeared)
Oops, some editing issue at ‘peer reviewed’
If there’s robust immunity infecfion doesn’t occur. It only does if immunization was unsuccessful.
I think that we can safely add
‘hybrid immunity’
when it’s used as some superhuman state instead of natural immunity with repeated pathogen/antigen exposure.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 6, 2021
A recently developed method, that expresses full spike trimers, enables more accurate measurement of binding IgG1 antibodies. Quite a few interesting results in this study.
First of all, the second dose of mRNA vaccines adds very little extra binding. medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
More importantly, the absolute increase in Delta variant binding antibodies following administration of the 2nd dose to previously infected people is limited to a small subset of adults. At the same time, the relative number of Delta binding Ab to non-binding (old Wuhan) Ab is…
…terribly low. What’s the use of that thick soup of sky high antibodies then? Triggering autoimmunity? 🤔
The authors are not impressed either, although expected such results from shotgun injecting the same antigen, leaving no time for maturation.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 11, 2021
Let me strip the unnecessary narrative out of this otherwise nice study/abstract to get a clear picture. Short thread 🧵

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain antibody evolution after mRNA vaccination
How infection elicits broad protection
“SARS-CoV-2 infection produces B cell responses that continue to evolve for at least one year. During that time, memory B cells express increasingly broad and potent antibodies that are resistant to mutations found in variants of concern”
Following vaccination
“Between prime and boost, memory B cells produce antibodies that evolve increased neutralizing activity, but there is no further increase in potency or breadth thereafter.”
= the booster is too close to the priming dose and prevents affinity maturation.
Read 8 tweets
Aug 24, 2021
Antibody depending enhancement was a threat that looked possible (or even likely) a year ago, based on experience with historical CoV vaccine attempts. Then it started to look like a non-issue during trials and early rollout. Now it’s back on the table. First described in… 1/7
…a paper published in February, i.e. prior the emergence of Delta and only looking at Wuhan-Wuhan re-exposure. Enhancement was seen in just a small subset of macaques:
Then a study that used a Wuhan-Delta sequence of spike exposure found something… 2/7
…really different👇🏻 journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-…
So what does that mean, what can we expect now that the 3rd doses of Wuhan spike based vaccines are being rolled out? The Original Antigenic Sin concept tells us that repeated exposure preferentially boosts old antibodies. (More… 3/7
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!